what is the beggining of philosophy?

The begging of Philosophy began millions years ago , when humans where created in another world called the "atomic world" , and in fact people keep asking philosophical questions because they are looking for the creator who created them .
They used to know who is the creator , but this world where they came into made them forgot who is the creator , thats why humans are ignorant and unhappy .
And one must know that the creator is very simple and answers humans philosophical questions to make his life easy and happy .
People fail to know their creator. thats why they are ignorant and unhappy , because they don't know that the creator is in , around , out , near , far , next to them .
And thats what make few people around here can answer philosophical questions , in fact they are unique and hidden between thousands of ignorant people around here who fail to recognize them .

The truth is gifted people are rare ,and few other people can understand them .
God bless them , and thanks for your great gifts of clear secret thoughts .

Depends on which facts you are talking about. All facts are not created equal, because humans are subjective animals.

If you thought putting me on ignore was a good idea, why haven't you?

Putting you on ignore was a good idea for about an hour but I can't let stupidity go unchecked.

Go back and read my response to Fido (as if that's goinf to make any difference with you).

You have to prove stupidity. I won't wait.

Don't wait .... who cares ....
Are you taking words and letters seriously.

So I'm sorry to tell you that you don't exist . Your in the world of nothingness .
Find yourself .

I agree permoda. However, I would say "no thing ness" and I would also say "your self".

If nobody cares, why bother posting about me? You're a loser, because you contradict yourself.

This does seem to be true!

I just did.

Good riddance.

We're all in this together man, no need for pointless insults.

Back in the 60s or 70s I saw a poster that said "If you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with your bullshit." You are the one tasked with seeing the difference.

I was having a discussion with an associate about facts, logic, and opinions.

I read the following post to him that I had made on a forum.

“Facts are a human construct. A combination of characteristics. They are man's invention to create certainty where there is no certainty. (BTW-characteristics are also a human construct).

Logic is a human construct and the result of proving an assertion. Proof provided must follow the agreed upon construct of logic. Logic is man's attempt at creating predictability (control).

Facts and logic are a re-presentation of the phenomenon of Be-ing/living. Facts and logic are but a semblance of the phenomenon being represented. They have nothing to do with the phenomenon called living.

Life as we re-present is a house of cards. We spend a lifetime arguing for our opinions about facts and logic and never do we take the time to notice that our opinions, facts, and logic have nothing to do with Be-ing/living. We just go on defending them as if they are true. We are all pompous asses!”

He paused for a moment and ask “What about the alphabet?” “You can't dispute that the alphabet has 26 letters.”

I have to admit that he caught me by surprise. I stood there (metaphorically) dumbfounded. I noticed that my first inclination was to determine how I could be right regarding my statement “Facts are a human construct . . .” The next thing I noticed is that I could “put up or shut up”. I can “shut up” with others but I had to work this out for myself.

In the late 80s I was traveling the country representing a company that taught memory courses. I recalled that someone told me that the consonants we use in the English language are the variety of “guttural grunts” humans Be-ing use to communicate.

The following is a list of the consonants we use in the English language. (I'll add vowels to the consonants because it's easier to 'sound' them out.) There are a few that are basically the same with a slight variation. 'Ta' and 'da' are basically the same guttural grunt with a slight variation. 'Ka', 'ca', 'qa', and 'ga' are closely related, so are 'fa' and 'va'. Then you have 'sha' and 'ja', and then 'pa' and 'ba'. To round out the collection you have 'sa', 'xa', and 'za'. (To experience the slight variation of each pair, pronounce both examples and notice the difference.)

Add in the rest of the consonants 'na', 'ma', 'ra', 'la', 'wa', 'ya', and 'ha' plus the vowels a,e,i,o,u, and you have 26 letters.

From what I can tell, every language is a sophisticated system of “guttural grunts”. Vedic Sanskrit is the world's oldest language and it took 100 years to compile all of the nuances (from the 4th to the 3rd century BC). Vedic Sanskrit is a human construct. They did such a good job compiling it it's considered to be the best language for use in Computational Linguistics and Artificial Intelligence by NASA.

The 26-letter English language alphabet is a human construct that started as the Latin alphabet in the 7th century BC. Latin was adopted from the western variant of the Greek alphabet in Cumae, Italy (a Greek Colony) and has been altered over the next 2500 years. The Etruscan, Greek, Phoenician, and the Semitic alphabet influences have changed phonetic values (distinctions in guttural grunts), individual letters have been gained and lost, and writing styles have also changed.

The English language was originally written in the Anglo-Saxon futhorc runic alphabet in use from the 5th century. Around the 7th century the Latin alphabet was introduced by Christian missionaries and began to replace the Anglo-Saxon futhorc alphabet and eventually becoming Old English.

Let me go back to what I said in the beginning.

“Facts are a human construct. A combination of characteristics. They are man's invention to create certainty where there is no certainty. (BTW-characteristics are also a human construct).”

It is a unquestionable fact that the English alphabet has 26 letters. However, the English alphabet is a construct which represents over 2500 years of evolution.

Individual letters and symbols make up the languages of the world. The purpose of language is to express Be-ing to the others who live in the world alongside of you.

Language is a construct (a combination of characteristics). It is a tool you use to communicate who you are Be-ing. Be-ing is the phenomenon that happens before language. You are not the language you use. You are Be-ing, the phenomenon.

That's a good quote, I like it. BTW - I stopped listening to what cicerone imposter had to say after he wrote - "All facts are not created equal." - LMFAO!!!!!

Also, nice post, but if it had been me I would have simply said "Do 'letters' exist in the physical world?", the answer is obviously no and therefore they must have been 'created' conceptually. It's very simple really.

I was addressing "facts" not "letters". I was also making the distinction between "Be-ing" and "contructs". People think that who they are is the "constructs" and not "Be-ing".

One more thing you should recognize. The conclusion of a thought process is not where the value is. The value is in the thinking. You can't be sure that somebody will get your conclusion, so you need to walk them through the thinking. They will get what they need from their thinking, not from your conclusion.

Is this a example of what you are saying about {You can't be sure that somebody will get your conclusion, so you need to walk them through the thinking. They will get what they need from their thinking, not from your conclusion.}


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZNbVL9EQKs

I didn't watch what was connected to that link. Having someone watch somebody else's video doesn't come close to uncovering you, thinking, and doesn't come close to "walking them through the thinking".

Ok! I can somewhat see what you are refering to, but the sad truth is that I can misunderstand things such as this!
Is there any possibility that I can be wrong in my point of views? and also is there any posability that you could be wrong about what I have shared with you? Or are you 100% sure about your point of view? If you are I hope that you do not mind me asking for a more indetph understanding of what you have shared as I am slow witted and slow to catch on!

All you need is the "Ok! I can somewhat see what you are referring to". I have found (from experience) that what I am talking about can be understood but not explained.

The truth is that you already know what I'm talking about and your request for 'explanation' is your desire to 'make it fit' into your already determined set of definitions (presuppositions) so you can be 'comfortable' with it. It doesn't fit.

If I started to explain it to you, we would both discover that the further we went into the 'explanation' we would discover that more explanation would be needed. "Explanation" is our way of covering up what we know instead of owning it.

As I said earlier, you already 'know' what I'm saying, otherwise you couldn't ask for reassurance that you know what you know. That's all the 'proof' you have and all the 'proof' you need.

BTW - don't play the "slow witted" card, it isn't true. Is it.